Richard Dawkins: I will arrest the Pope

[Aaron]

And what? Lets say that he gets arrested in the UK, what then? Even if he gets charged and convicted of something (do we have any evidence?), will anything change? Will the next Pope do anything different? The last Pope was a far better human being then this one and IIRC he did jack and shit about it.

You want to punish the church without coming off as a petulant jackass on the international stage? Then start rounding up and charging the priests that have been committing offences and work your way up their chain of command until you've got everyone.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Indeed, it doesn't; it exceeds it. It sets a predecent for every country to challenge sovereignity and/or revoke diplomatic immunity of another country with impunity. How would you like if Iran would revoke Western diplomats' immunity? Or how about that African dictator who wanted to revoke the sovereignity of Switzerland?

I wouldn't worry too much. International politics always has been and will remain a totally anarchic stage. An African dictator could revoke the sovereignty of Switzerland, but unless he has the ability to actually act upon that statement then it's simply a show. Similarly Iran has ratified the VCoDR, they'd be in breach of 'International Law' if they did such a thing. The Holy See is a permanent observer state, but it is not a member or required to sign any UN treaties.

[SCRawl]

Indeed, it doesn't; it exceeds it. It sets a predecent for every country to challenge sovereignity and/or revoke diplomatic immunity of another country with impunity. How would you like if Iran would revoke Western diplomats' immunity? Or how about that African dictator who wanted to revoke the sovereignity of Switzerland?

I'm not suggesting a unilateral revocation of sovereignty -- that's silly. It would have to be the international community that decide whether or not a country deserves it, not any one member of that community. For any real state, that is. There appears to be at least one lawyer out there who thinks he can make a reasonable argument for the illegitimacy of the Vatican as a sovereign state:

Pope 'has no UK arrest immunity'

Plans to have the Pope arrested when he visits the UK will succeed because he is not a head of state, a solicitor has said.

Atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens proposed the action against the Pontiff for his handling of child abuse scandals in the Catholic church.

The writers' solicitor Mark Stephens said applications will be made to courts in the UK and the International Criminal Court for a warrant for Pope Benedict XVI's arrest.

His likely defence would be be that he is immune from prosecution during his visit to Britain in September, according to the lawyer.

Mr Stephens said: "The courts will examine the claim of immunity. I believe that an English court would reject it. If the Pope was here on a state visit, ordinarily a head of state would have sovereign immunity. What I believe is that because he's not a sovereign, not a head of state, he's not entitled to the defence."

He said that the Vatican was declared to be a state by Benito Mussolini, but this had no standing in international law.

The Pope faced criticism after it emerged that he signed a letter which delayed the punishment of a paedophile priest in the US for the "good of the universal church".

Writing in 1985, the future Pontiff said that he needed more time to consider the case.

Mr Stephens, who has represented abuse victims in the past said: "This will require the Pope to deal with the way in which he appears to have prioritised the reputation of the Catholic church over the welfare of children."

Potential charges against the Pope would be crimes against humanity.

The problem is, I think, that this effort is doomed to fail. The only way I can think of to make a state give up its sovereignty is to get almost everyone else to agree that it isn't sovereign.

[General Brock]

And what? Lets say that he gets arrested in the UK, what then? Even if he gets charged and convicted of something (do we have any evidence?), will anything change? Will the next Pope do anything different? The last Pope was a far better human being then this one and IIRC he did jack and shit about it.

You want to punish the church without coming off as a petulant jackass on the international stage? Then start rounding up and charging the priests that have been committing offences and work your way up their chain of command until you've got everyone.

Joey the Rat is part of the command chain. Perhaps he never personally molested anyone, but enabling those crimes would make him an accomplice or accessory. The people who signed off on helping priests evade prosecution, and even bring them to new parishes for a 'fresh start', are the main source of anger at the church.

There's probably no better way to audit that paper trail than to start with this pope, who was before his elevation an enforcer.

[Serafina]

After all, he HAS diplomatic immunity - and unless he himself revokes that, you can not impeach him without violating various international treaties.

No he doesn't. The State of Vatican City is not a signatory of the Vienna Conventions.

Well, i am refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Seethis, and i certainly a a lot of sources saying he has diplomatic immunity.
Of course, i might be wrong, but a source or explanation might be nice

[Tiriol]

I'm not suggesting a unilateral revocation of sovereignty -- that's silly. It would have to be the international community that decide whether or not a country deserves it, not any one member of that community. For any real state, that is. There appears to be at least one lawyer out there who thinks he can make a reasonable argument for the illegitimacy of the Vatican as a sovereign state:

Pope 'has no UK arrest immunity'

Plans to have the Pope arrested when he visits the UK will succeed because he is not a head of state, a solicitor has said.

Atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens proposed the action against the Pontiff for his handling of child abuse scandals in the Catholic church.

The writers' solicitor Mark Stephens said applications will be made to courts in the UK and the International Criminal Court for a warrant for Pope Benedict XVI's arrest.

His likely defence would be be that he is immune from prosecution during his visit to Britain in September, according to the lawyer.

Mr Stephens said: "The courts will examine the claim of immunity. I believe that an English court would reject it. If the Pope was here on a state visit, ordinarily a head of state would have sovereign immunity. What I believe is that because he's not a sovereign, not a head of state, he's not entitled to the defence."

He said that the Vatican was declared to be a state by Benito Mussolini, but this had no standing in international law.

The Pope faced criticism after it emerged that he signed a letter which delayed the punishment of a paedophile priest in the US for the "good of the universal church".

Writing in 1985, the future Pontiff said that he needed more time to consider the case.

Mr Stephens, who has represented abuse victims in the past said: "This will require the Pope to deal with the way in which he appears to have prioritised the reputation of the Catholic church over the welfare of children."

Potential charges against the Pope would be crimes against humanity.

The problem is, I think, that this effort is doomed to fail. The only way I can think of to make a state give up its sovereignty is to get almost everyone else to agree that it isn't sovereign.

Italized by me.

So last five decades or so of international precedents concerning the Vatican should be swept aside? What would you think of a Russian lawyer who would argue that the international stage shouldn't consider, say, the Baltic States or Finland sovereign nations, since they were declared to be so by a Communist leader who had his sweet time getting his own government recognized by Western Powers?

You are correct that the effort is most likely doomed to fail, if only because every small nation out there will fight tooth and nail against it if only to ensure that THEIR sovereignity is not challenged later on.

[Shroom Man 777]

And what? Lets say that he gets arrested in the UK, what then? Even if he gets charged and convicted of something (do we have any evidence?), will anything change? Will the next Pope do anything different? The last Pope was a far better human being then this one and IIRC he did jack and shit about it.

It might frighten the Church.

You want to punish the church without coming off as a petulant jackass on the international stage? Then start rounding up and charging the priests that have been committing offences and work your way up their chain of command until you've got everyone.

Well, we can certainly do this easier after we've interrogated the Pope and after he decides to give testimony in exchange for pardon or for a lighter time. Like those Mafia goons who get caught, and make a deal with the prosecutor to squeal in exchange for a shorter prison sentence.

Too bad when Ratzinger gets out, the other angry Archbishops and Vatican Dons will most likely rig his Popemobile with a carbomb or have his altar boy garrote him, or tie a cement Pope hat to his head and throw him in a river.

[CJvR]

The only way I can think of to make a state give up its sovereignty is to get almost everyone else to agree that it isn't sovereign.

Yes, and then you need to invade it and convince the locals at gunpoint that they aren't sovereign anymore... Besides if all it took was the International community vote on sovereignty I suspect the US and Israel would be in greater danger of becoming UN wards than the Vatican.

[Hillary]

Well, we can certainly do this easier after we've interrogated the Pope and after he decides to give testimony in exchange for pardon or for a lighter time. Like those Mafia goons who get caught, and make a deal with the prosecutor to squeal in exchange for a shorter prison sentence.

And if he doesn't talk - waterboarding time!

As far as I'm concerned, anything that embarrasses Pope Rat over the child abuse scandal is alright by me. He's having a far too easy time in the media imo.

Can you, for example, imagine the furore had it been a high-ranking Muslim cleric involved in a child abuse cover-up.

[[R_H]]

Edit: Never mind

[petesampras]

This is cloud cuckoo land stuff.

Regardless of how strong a case they can put forward, there is absolutely no way the freaking Pope would ever be arrested in the UK.

[Shroom Man 777]

Of course not. This is just a publicity stunt to make the Catholic Church, and Pope Ratzinger, look bad. You can't object to that, right?

Preferably, I would've done something more like having a public discussion/chat with the Pope. And then suddenly I'll go "Hey, Your Eminence, what was it like when you were in the Hitler Youth?" and catch the Pope totally off-guard with that inappropriate question. Unfortunately, if Ratzinger is sharp, he can just construe a very cunning reply with vain Christian platitudes about how it was a dark time, but with each man's virtue the light of Jesus shines through and blah blah blah.

But man. Think about it, how often can you suddenly out of the blue ask a person "Hey, what was it like when you were a Little Boy Nazi/in the Hitler Youth?"

[Serafina]

To be fair, membership in the Hitler Youth is NOT something i would blame him for, since you pretty much had to be a member and you really did not have much a choice.
Furthermore, even IF - would you hold a childs political beliefs against an adult?

[Shroom Man 777]

I know. It's a weak attack. But it IS something very inappropriate to mention in a conversation, very out of the left field.

Yes it would be more appropriate to stick to the topic at hand and suddenly ask the Pope about, say, child-molesters or something. Hopefully it will make him squirm or something.

[Siege]

It won't. Joseph Ratzinger didn't become Pope by chance -- this guy is the Church' equivalent of an extremely shrewd politician with a decades-spanning career that ended in the highest office it was possible for him to be elected to. He'd deal with such a question the same way a nine-term US Senator would: by sprouting some platitudes that don't really address much of anything and then moving on to the next issue.

[SCRawl]

So last five decades or so of international precedents concerning the Vatican should be swept aside? What would you think of a Russian lawyer who would argue that the international stage shouldn't consider, say, the Baltic States or Finland sovereign nations, since they were declared to be so by a Communist leader who had his sweet time getting his own government recognized by Western Powers?

Are you seriously putting Finland and the Vatican on equal footing in terms of the legitimacy of their sovereignty? People live in Finland, by the millions. There is (as I'm sure I don't need to tell you) a functioning government that builds roads and collects taxes and administrates social programs, and a military that protects that sovereignty. The Vatican exists to administrate a fucking religion. It continues to enjoy independent status among the rest of the world only because there has been no particular reason to discontinue that status.

You are correct that the effort is most likely doomed to fail, if only because every small nation out there will fight tooth and nail against it if only to ensure that THEIR sovereignity is not challenged later on.

Tooth and nail is about all those smaller nations have, if the question of their sovereignty ever becomes an issue. No one really gives a shit if Monaco is an independent country, though I suppose that's always subject to change if its status as a tax haven ever becomes too inconvenient. If that does happen, though, or if they start harbouring international fugitives, then there is a mechanism for effectively revoking a country's sovereignty: invasion and occupation. It happened to Afghanistan (with the blessing of the UN), and to Iraq (without it), and that's just recent history. At the end of the day, if the rest of the world doesn't want you to be a country, then you only have as much sovereignty as you can hold onto with military force.

Now, I'm not suggesting that invading the Vatican is a good idea. It's entirely within Italy, for one thing, and I'm pretty sure that they would have multiple legitimate objections to that kind of treatment. If enough nations just decide that they don't want to recognize the Vatican as a nation anymore, though, then it's not a nation anymore.

I would suggest that most people can objectively look at the Vatican, from the most basic attributes (such as its physical dimensions and population -- 828 people, according to Wikipedia, by the way) to its raison d'etre (which is nothing more than a haven for a purely religious regime) and conclude that its claim to sovereignty is not as strong as that of, as you mentioned, Finland.

[SCRawl]

The only way I can think of to make a state give up its sovereignty is to get almost everyone else to agree that it isn't sovereign.

Yes, and then you need to invade it and convince the locals at gunpoint that they aren't sovereign anymore... Besides if all it took was the International community vote on sovereignty I suspect the US and Israel would be in greater danger of becoming UN wards than the Vatican.

Well, yes, that's how it works, isn't it? We all only have those rights that we can protect.

In the context of this discussion, though, I think that the mere denial of the Vatican's diplomatic immunity would be enough to achieve the desired results. I really find it hard to believe that the international community -- leaving aside religious reasons -- would really give a shit if the Vatican were to cease being an independent nation.